No need to cross it out, you had it right the first time.
Most Important Battle in History
- Thread starter Dreadnought
- Start date
The Battle of Britain.
If the Germans had attained air superiority over the channel, and operation Sea Lion was succesfull, then the possibility exists that the Nazi's could have defeated (or stale-mated) the USSR (absent lend-lease), leaving Hitler master of Europe. There would follow a Cold War between American and Germania, with the Nazi rocket scientists reaching the Moon (ultimate high-ground) first. Collapse of Democracy, no Isreal, the Church compromised, eugenics on a continental scale, and the sinister advance of a dark and perverted science.
If the Germans had attained air superiority over the channel, and operation Sea Lion was succesfull, then the possibility exists that the Nazi's could have defeated (or stale-mated) the USSR (absent lend-lease), leaving Hitler master of Europe. There would follow a Cold War between American and Germania, with the Nazi rocket scientists reaching the Moon (ultimate high-ground) first. Collapse of Democracy, no Isreal, the Church compromised, eugenics on a continental scale, and the sinister advance of a dark and perverted science.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
There would be no Nazis if the Germans didn't lose WWI, which was a result of the failure of the Schlieffen Plan at the Marne; and there wouldn't be a German Empire if they hadn't defeated the French in various battles in 1870, and further the Austrians at Königgrätz -- but the Austro-Prussian War might not've happened had the Concert of Europe been altered, so we can trace this all back to Napoleon's pyrrhic victory at Borodino and defeats at Leipzig and Waterloo, and yet there would be no Napoleonic empire if he hadn't initially gained notoriety at the Siege of Toulon, etc.
And, to turn this in the other direction, your predictions of how WWII would've gone had the British failed to achieve air superiority in 1940 are impossible to corroborate. The largest of events are the sum of a large accumulation of chain reactions that ultimately stem from small things, which is what we call the Butterfly Effect. Trying to engage in counter-factuals is pointless because of it.
Point number two: how a battle turns out (short of some monumental act of providence) is the sum of all of the factors pertaining to the battle. The reason why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe is because they had superior strategy and pilots. If you alter these factors, then you're consequently altering other circumstantial elements, thus making the hypothetical scenario rather hard to identify as being parallel with what actually happened.
And, to turn this in the other direction, your predictions of how WWII would've gone had the British failed to achieve air superiority in 1940 are impossible to corroborate. The largest of events are the sum of a large accumulation of chain reactions that ultimately stem from small things, which is what we call the Butterfly Effect. Trying to engage in counter-factuals is pointless because of it.
Point number two: how a battle turns out (short of some monumental act of providence) is the sum of all of the factors pertaining to the battle. The reason why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe is because they had superior strategy and pilots. If you alter these factors, then you're consequently altering other circumstantial elements, thus making the hypothetical scenario rather hard to identify as being parallel with what actually happened.
"...impossible to corroborate." - agreed, it's just an amusing speculation. But you do know the "Butterfly Effect" is nonesense. A butterfly in Brazil cannot cause a tornado in Texas.
I would also respectfully disagree with, "...the reason why the British defeated the Luftwaffe..." The RAF acted entirely defensively, their strategy reactive, their pilots less experienced than their opponents. The Germans were on offense and bear the responsibilty of a failed and confused strategy.
Most of the time we view the importance of an event by its obvious consequences. But sometimes we wonder what would have happened otherwise. What if the bomb hadn't been dropped and the war continued? What if Alexander had headed West? What if the Mongols hadn't turned around to bury their Khan?
That's why these forums exist. To speculate and argue. I respect your opinions but I disagree.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The weather formulas is only the etymology of the term "Butterfly Effect". I don't see how anybody can deny that teleologically, it's an actual phenomenon. A guy stops to admire a butterfly, and because of that wasted moment, misses his bus; and thus, is late for his job interview; and thus, does not get the job, does not build up his career, does not eventually become chief physicist of MIT, does not discover cold fusion, American reliance on coal and fossil fuels continues, nuclear war with Russia happens over oil, etc.
Now, apply this to monumental things like all the reasons the Nazis lost the Battle of Britain and you have an incoherent mess, a web of probability chains that can't be reasonably deciphered.
I don't see how this is a contradiction of what I said.
Alternate scenarios presume that not only what happened changes, but the factors that caused said event also change, and thus are entirely incomprehensible. Given that humans can't see the future in the first place, it's also a waste of time. Imagine if I stuck my head into an alternate dimension for a moment, where several hundreds of factors were tampered with, and Alexander decided to go west. Alright, now what? I couldn't tell you what's going to happen now, because of (a) the butterfly effect resulting in so many things being a colossus of difference, so trying to speak of the future is as much a guess as trying to see into the future right this moment; and (b) this world is fundamentally different because all of the chain reactions leading to Alexander choosing to turn west are altered; and consequently, so are all of the factors that lead to those factors, potentially at infinitum.
If the Germans attained air superiority over the Channel - and they should have, the RAF was outmatched - Operation Sealion STILL would have failed. Crossing the Channel requires these things called ships, and Germany didn't have enough of them.
That and the RAF could have maintained significant fighter and bomber strength outside the range of most German escorts, allowing them to provide air support to coastal areas to help protect shipping and beaches.
Sure they were the defender and had to react, but their reaction time was fairly short, and with RADAR it was sufficient.
They had ground support, where they lacked numbers they still had AA guns firing.
The RAF had considerably more flight time then the German fighters did when in the area of battles. And a much faster turna around time, helping negate any numerical difference.
If a German plane was shot down, the pilot was usually lost, plenty of British pilots just turned around and hopped into another fighter.
If necessary, they could always pull their fighter strength back and rebuild.
The Luftwaffe was poorly equipped for the job. It was lacking in areas such as heavy bombers.
In the Battle of Britain, the Germans did not have near the advantage that is often reported.
The British had many significant advantages during the Battle of Britain.
Sure they were the defender and had to react, but their reaction time was fairly short, and with RADAR it was sufficient.
They had ground support, where they lacked numbers they still had AA guns firing.
The RAF had considerably more flight time then the German fighters did when in the area of battles. And a much faster turna around time, helping negate any numerical difference.
If a German plane was shot down, the pilot was usually lost, plenty of British pilots just turned around and hopped into another fighter.
If necessary, they could always pull their fighter strength back and rebuild.
The Luftwaffe was poorly equipped for the job. It was lacking in areas such as heavy bombers.
In the Battle of Britain, the Germans did not have near the advantage that is often reported.
I don't think he would have discovered "cold fusion" even if he caught his bus.
OK, let's say for the sake of argument, that the RAF actually did win the Battle of Britain. Then Hitler might have gone on to invade the Soviet Union with an undefeated England at his back allowing the projection of American power onto the European continent resulting in a two-front war that Germany could not have won. This might have led to a cold war confrontation between the chief victors; the USA and USSR; captured Nazi scientists may have helped one side land on the moon; the collapse of Facism, a Jewish homeland in Isreal; the Church regains its independence; the abandonment of eugenics; and the spread of Freedom and Democracy.
I believe the Battle of Britain was very important.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
No Battle of Britain if no Battle of the Marne, and all that jazz.
True enough. Even using bases in Norway, Germany couldn't reach the vast majority of British airfields.
I'm aware that the German advantage is often overstated for propaganda reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the Germans were, on the whole, better trained and equipped. If they'd conducted their bombing operations with any degree of competence they would probably have inflicted far greater damage on Britain. It was the result of stupid decisions by Goering and others that robbed the Germans of adequate fighter-cover, used bombers for incorrect missions, etc.. They couldn't have 'won' the Battle of Britain, as it was patently unwinnable for Germany. But they should have done considerably better than they did.
That Harry Turtledove isn't the only one that can write incomprehensible alt-hist bullcrap?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
That counter-factuals are so impossibly complex that they're pointless, and that the notion of any battle could be the "most important in history" when they're contingent upon earlier battles is rather bonkers. The most important battle, ergo, is when the Ugg tribe defeated the Errgh tribe.
duckduckswan
Borelord
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 174
Sorry to be off topic but I grabbed one of his civil war books in an airport once and this comment made me laugh out loud at the memory.It must be nice to be able to incorporate pseudomathematics into your worldview selectively, ignoring the parts that don't mesh with your predetermined outlook.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The notions of contingency and not-being-able-to-see-the-future aren't pseudomathematic.
And what's wrong with determinism?
Well if we're opening the can to non-human battles, then you may as well go all the way back to bacteria.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I never understood this obsession with "if the Germans could/had bombed the airfields" I have a friend writing a thesis now to debunk it. It's really silly when you think about it: We were able to fly over almost all of German territory with our aircraft, yet the Luftwaffe proved a determined fighting force until 1944 at the earliest. The Japanese had a larger pool of aircraft at the end of the war then they had in January of 1945. Clearly if bombing airfields was a sure way to destroy the airforce, this wouldn't be a problem.
hewhoknowsall
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 294
What if, because this random guy woke up a few hours late, he ran into a not-so-nice king, who got angry and ordered his execution? This guy then got on a horse and ran away all the way to where the Mongolian tribes lived, where he accidentally ran into and killed Ghengis's great-great-great...grand mother?
What if this one guy deciding to eat at Mcdonalds instead of Burger Kings accidentally drops a Big Mac on someone, and the guy that he dropped it on screams, which causes a chef to get distracted and kill himself (by accident) with a knife, which causes McDonalds to ban big macs, which causes America to get much fitter, which means that this one bad person instead of dying from some genetical obesity problem goes on to take control of the world?
Anyway, those battles that saved Greece from Persia saved what would become the basis for all civilization.
And many WW2 battles such as Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain.
What if this one guy deciding to eat at Mcdonalds instead of Burger Kings accidentally drops a Big Mac on someone, and the guy that he dropped it on screams, which causes a chef to get distracted and kill himself (by accident) with a knife, which causes McDonalds to ban big macs, which causes America to get much fitter, which means that this one bad person instead of dying from some genetical obesity problem goes on to take control of the world?
Anyway, those battles that saved Greece from Persia saved what would become the basis for all civilization.
And many WW2 battles such as Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain.
Similar threads
